4 ms·

On a parallel Earth, Vox has published an article praising Amazon to the high heavens for hiring felons and troubled youth. Nobody wants to hire ex-convicts, y

On a parallel Earth, Vox has published an article praising Amazon to the high heavens for hiring felons and troubled youth. Nobody wants to hire ex-convicts, yet when they have nothing to lose (like a decent job) they're at far greater risk for recidivism. It's a bummer for the union people, I suppose, but as someone greatly concerned with how our society shows no shame in blatant classism with regards to ex-cons, I really wish Amazon the best with this program and hope it quickly spreads to other companies as well. That their reasons for doing so are not entirely altruistic just doesn't worry me in this particular case.

huetius 4y ago
I totally agree with you about our society’s mistreatment of people who have paid their debts, but I’m not sure I like what Amazon is doing here. It smacks of using people: treating them like props in order to secure private gain.
- civilized 4y ago
  > It smacks of using people Work is fundamentally transactional. Those for whom it is more than that are lucky. > treating them like props in order to secure private gain I worry about moralizing on behalf of the marginalized. They should be asked whether they'd prefer the option to have the work.
  - huetius 4y ago
    Respectfully, I disagree with the postulate that there is no possibility of solidarity with “the marginalized”, and think this is a good example of why. When you say ask “them,” who do you mean? Ex-convicts, Amazon workers, teamsters, some combination of these, or what? And who are you going to listen to when people (inevitably, even within the same faction) disagree? I think that what this approach does is renders ethical discussions impossible. By denying the possibility of a common rationality in which moral questions can be weighed, ethics is reduced into a collision of interests, and the unsurprising result is that nothing can happen without the approval of the strongest party in the conflict. See Occupy Wall Street for another example of this principle in action.
    - civilized 4y ago
      I see what you're saying. I think the moral thing here is to beat them at their own game. Presumably any ex-cons hired by Amazon can be brought on board as union members just as well as anyone else.
  - slt2021 4y ago
    >> I worry about moralizing on behalf of the marginalized. They should be asked whether they'd prefer the option to have the work. perfect quote! Nothing else really needs to be said. People who oppose Amazon - I want to see you guys giving thousands jobs to convicts, before criticizing Amazon. Thank you. Talk is cheap
- Cyberdog 4y ago
  Yes, well, such is the case with the Dave Thomas Foundation, Ronald McDonald House, Product RED… Any good they do is all with the bottom line in mind. Meanwhile, the felon who gets a $15+/hour gig in an Amazon warehouse during the hardest time in their life, when no other employer in town will give them the time of day and the urges to fall back into those bad habits are creeping in, is probably not going to care much about being "used."
  - huetius 4y ago
    We’re talking about plan to subvert unions. It is one thing to do something that is both good for me and also good for others. It is quite another to do something ostensibly good, but with the ulterior intention of preventing the good of another.
    - JamesBarney 4y ago
      Why is hiring felons and underprivileged youth ostensibly good and not just good?
      - t-3 4y ago
        The felons and underprivileged youths don't pay the salaries of union bureaucrats or provide leverage for those bureaucrats to get kickbacks from management. Obviously, that's just not right!
    - Cyberdog 4y ago
      Giving a job to an ex-con is both good for the ex-con and good for others, as giving the ex-con something to live for greatly reduces the chance that they will return to antisocial behavior. As a non-Teamster, I'm not really sure what good is done for me if a Teamster gets a job, or what harm is done to me if they don't. Frankly, the more this idea is being discussed here, the more I'm hoping Amazon hires as many ex-cons as possible and if that means completely busting any union activity in their company in perpetuity, so be it.
      - 4y ago
- ipaddr 4y ago
  Have you ever worked for a large corporation? Everyone is a prop and replaceable.
  - huetius 4y ago
    So one should stay quiet? And yes. Both at the very bottom and close to the top.
stuaxo 4y ago
Indeed, if this much union activity causes some good, then more union activity can do more.
danielscrubs 4y ago
If we say that four percent has to be unemployed, who would you choose to be unemployed in the rat race that is life? Just to turn the discussion into something productive.
- whatshisface 4y ago
  That is not how fixed unemployment works, the cause of fixed unemployment is people who are in the process of switching between jobs. Permanently unemployed people would reduce labor force participation, not employment as it is measured.
  - danielscrubs 4y ago
    Only if they are not actively searching for a job. OECDs definition: “ The unemployed are people of working age who are _without work_ , are available for work, and have taken specific steps to find work.” This number for the year was around 4.7. Labor force participation would decrease when people retire or never needed to work in the first place. But I understand your point, it includes some people that will easily get a job but don’t have a job currently.
    - whatshisface 4y ago
      Since people who have given up looking for work do not count towards the measured unemployment rate (and more to the point are not part of the concept of minimum unemployment), ex-cons are not a part of that notional 4%.
      - danielscrubs 4y ago
        But the ones in the article did search :)
- Cyberdog 4y ago
  Those who have enough wealth that they don't need employment to live comfortably. Not sure what this has to do with my post unless you were trying to argue that it's fine for ex-cons to be perpetually among the unemployed; in that case, the idea of our "corrections systems" helping people who do anti-social behavior become productive members of society again is even more of a sham that it already is, so why don't we just go ahead and give all felons the chair? Is the discussion not productive already?

huetius 4y ago

I totally agree with you about our society’s mistreatment of people who have paid their debts, but I’m not sure I like what Amazon is doing here. It smacks of using people: treating them like props in order to secure private gain.

civilized 4y ago
> It smacks of using people Work is fundamentally transactional. Those for whom it is more than that are lucky. > treating them like props in order to secure private gain I worry about moralizing on behalf of the marginalized. They should be asked whether they'd prefer the option to have the work.
- huetius 4y ago
  Respectfully, I disagree with the postulate that there is no possibility of solidarity with “the marginalized”, and think this is a good example of why. When you say ask “them,” who do you mean? Ex-convicts, Amazon workers, teamsters, some combination of these, or what? And who are you going to listen to when people (inevitably, even within the same faction) disagree? I think that what this approach does is renders ethical discussions impossible. By denying the possibility of a common rationality in which moral questions can be weighed, ethics is reduced into a collision of interests, and the unsurprising result is that nothing can happen without the approval of the strongest party in the conflict. See Occupy Wall Street for another example of this principle in action.
  - civilized 4y ago
    I see what you're saying. I think the moral thing here is to beat them at their own game. Presumably any ex-cons hired by Amazon can be brought on board as union members just as well as anyone else.
- slt2021 4y ago
  >> I worry about moralizing on behalf of the marginalized. They should be asked whether they'd prefer the option to have the work. perfect quote! Nothing else really needs to be said. People who oppose Amazon - I want to see you guys giving thousands jobs to convicts, before criticizing Amazon. Thank you. Talk is cheap
Cyberdog 4y ago
Yes, well, such is the case with the Dave Thomas Foundation, Ronald McDonald House, Product RED… Any good they do is all with the bottom line in mind. Meanwhile, the felon who gets a $15+/hour gig in an Amazon warehouse during the hardest time in their life, when no other employer in town will give them the time of day and the urges to fall back into those bad habits are creeping in, is probably not going to care much about being "used."
- huetius 4y ago
  We’re talking about plan to subvert unions. It is one thing to do something that is both good for me and also good for others. It is quite another to do something ostensibly good, but with the ulterior intention of preventing the good of another.
  - JamesBarney 4y ago
    Why is hiring felons and underprivileged youth ostensibly good and not just good?
    - t-3 4y ago
      The felons and underprivileged youths don't pay the salaries of union bureaucrats or provide leverage for those bureaucrats to get kickbacks from management. Obviously, that's just not right!
  - Cyberdog 4y ago
    Giving a job to an ex-con is both good for the ex-con and good for others, as giving the ex-con something to live for greatly reduces the chance that they will return to antisocial behavior. As a non-Teamster, I'm not really sure what good is done for me if a Teamster gets a job, or what harm is done to me if they don't. Frankly, the more this idea is being discussed here, the more I'm hoping Amazon hires as many ex-cons as possible and if that means completely busting any union activity in their company in perpetuity, so be it.
    - 4y ago
ipaddr 4y ago
Have you ever worked for a large corporation? Everyone is a prop and replaceable.
- huetius 4y ago
  So one should stay quiet? And yes. Both at the very bottom and close to the top.

stuaxo 4y ago

Indeed, if this much union activity causes some good, then more union activity can do more.

danielscrubs 4y ago

If we say that four percent has to be unemployed, who would you choose to be unemployed in the rat race that is life? Just to turn the discussion into something productive.

whatshisface 4y ago
That is not how fixed unemployment works, the cause of fixed unemployment is people who are in the process of switching between jobs. Permanently unemployed people would reduce labor force participation, not employment as it is measured.
- danielscrubs 4y ago
  Only if they are not actively searching for a job. OECDs definition: “ The unemployed are people of working age who are _without work_ , are available for work, and have taken specific steps to find work.” This number for the year was around 4.7. Labor force participation would decrease when people retire or never needed to work in the first place. But I understand your point, it includes some people that will easily get a job but don’t have a job currently.
  - whatshisface 4y ago
    Since people who have given up looking for work do not count towards the measured unemployment rate (and more to the point are not part of the concept of minimum unemployment), ex-cons are not a part of that notional 4%.
    - danielscrubs 4y ago
      But the ones in the article did search :)
Cyberdog 4y ago
Those who have enough wealth that they don't need employment to live comfortably. Not sure what this has to do with my post unless you were trying to argue that it's fine for ex-cons to be perpetually among the unemployed; in that case, the idea of our "corrections systems" helping people who do anti-social behavior become productive members of society again is even more of a sham that it already is, so why don't we just go ahead and give all felons the chair? Is the discussion not productive already?